Religion and Politics

[Az]

The two great society Taboos. We don't talk about religion or politics. They are guaranteed anger inducers. But the net effect of not talking about them is to increase ignorance. The ability to dialog eventually atrophies and the sides become even further removed.

We come her to DU to talk about politics. Religion is entwined in politics in an absolute sense. Religion is the filter through which many people view the fabric of the world around them and politics is how we apply that view. They flow to and from one another.

Discussions about either subject are uncomfortable. This is because we simply do not have much experience discussing such things. Time and practice remove the rough edges and eventually those that wish to participate in productive discussions about either subject are able to make real progress. Till that time there will be bruised egos. There will be disruptors that simply do not get it. But eventually a dialog will be reached between responsible individuals who wish to build bridges between the differing positions of belief.

[Vagabond]

1. Religion is based on faith.

Without faith, it only makes sense any such dialogue will be nearly impossible to hold.

We are here talking politics. As one who is not religious, I don't understand your point about that one.

[Az]

4. One's politics flows from their religion

As such it is inseperable to that individual.

The trouble here comes in moving from discussing the political impact of a religious view to discussing the actual religion. These are two different things. In discussing these things the necessity of discussing religionis to familiarise others with the flow and logic behind your political positions. Without that understanding the political discussion is held in ignorance and without awareness of the origins of their idealologies.

Lack of familiarity breeds distrust. The more we understand about each others backgrounds the better we are able to craft our politics to include each others positions. What on my own I would consider to be a natural path I may alter if I take into consideration the positions of others. Consensus systems work much better when we know what the other parties values and biases are.

Again this is not to say that active challenging of anothers beliefs has a vital roll in this discussion. Religious debate is an entirely different question. Religious discussion is not religious debate. Without the dialog to introduce each other to the flow of our beliefs we are left with only assumptions and misunderstanding about others descisions.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

18. PLEASE READ LINKS. Religion is being used to END DEMOCRACY!

Religion is the biggest arrow in the quiver of the Culture War to hijack control of the biggest weapon on the planet, the US government.

'THE CHOSEN FEW' IS BEING MORPHED INTO 'THE MASTER RACE'
THE SAME WAY 'GET OSAMA' WAS MORPHED INTO 'GET SADDAM'! GET IT?

We are living in the closing minutes of a culture war that the American Taliban, called Dominionists, are winning.
The US Constitution (as people power) is being gutted and replaced with the Bible (as king power.)

This is the basic model of this religion-fueled fascism:
Supreme dictators smiting evil-doers wrathfully with no legal restraints. Sound familar?

The inflammation of the old anti-semitic, anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, and anti-porn 'passions' is cover for a very real and documented campaign to make this country into a Hitlerian theocracy fueled by fundamentalist religious passions called 'Dominionism.'

'Might Makes Right' is WINNING over 'The Rule of Law.'
We are experiencing the return of Eugenics (elimination of the 'weak') in our government's policies that looks very much like the old systems of feudalism, slavery and holocaust.
Have you noticed the body-count in the last three years with no end in sight?


Georgie's brain is much worse than you think and he's being used for terrible purposes. Here's a British clinical psychologist's researched analysis of the boy king. He interviewed Georgie's family, friends and such and determined that he was abused as a child and developed an 'authoritarian personality,' the root of fascism! Read it and weep for him and us.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1033904,00.html
(So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?)-CLICK

And this personality is being exploited to further the creation of a Hitlerian Theocracy called ‘Dominionism’, which has been going on in this country for the last thirty years. Read it and wonder what the hell we're in for next now that Eugenics is domestic policy and Imperialism is foreign policy.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5160.shtml
(God Bless America, The Constitution is Dead)-CLICK

If you'd like to read the full speech of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia back in the dark ages of January 2002 when he said that 'democracy interferes with the Divine Right of Kings and he's doing something about it,' read this and wonder what century we're living in and just what that Constitution was for, anyway.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/scalia.htm
(God's Justice and Ours)-CLICK

How can they get away with it when everyone seems to be pissed off at Georgie and we're supposed to be able to vote the bastard out of our White House? By fixing the electronic voting machines for 'the House.' Read this and decide which country to escape to this fall when Georgie is reinstalled like a 'Manchurian Candidate' to finish the job he was sent to do-eliminate democracy , create a police state, and conquer the world.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm
(Diebold, Electonic Voting, and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)-CLICK

LATE BREAKING NEWS-FEB. 26 2004
Right now the Dominionists are introducing legislation to replace 'The People' as the authority in our democracy’s Constitution with ‘God’ in a bill called ‘The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004,’ exactly the opposite of what it really is. The legalities of the Christian Theocracy are being used to destroy our laws as if by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

This is not a test! It is absolutely real and happening right now while the media are busy covering gay marriage and Mel Gibson’s bloody crucifixion porn film, ‘The Passion of the Christ.’

“…on February 11 , 2004 Dominionist leaders in congress made their move; they introduced a bill in both houses called The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004. Among the sponsors of the bill are Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama), Rep. Michael Pence (Indiana), Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Sen. Zell Miller (Georgia), Sen. Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina).

The House version is H.R. 3799 and the Senate version is S. 2082. The bill limits the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts to hear cases involving “expressions of religious faith by elected or appointed officials.”

Although the claim by its sponsors appears to be that the intention is to prevent the courts from hearing cases involving the Ten Commandments or a Nativity Scene in a public setting from being reviewed, the law is drawn broadly and expressly includes the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of executing his office.”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0402/S00172.htm
(The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004)-CLICK

[Skidmore]

19. Which is exactly why it should be discussed and

not avoided. I am, by no means, a ranting practitioner of any one belief system. I was raised as a Christian, but I believe there are many paths to God/enlightenmentor whatever you chose to call that which we as humans aspire to that is greater than us all. That aspiration is a part of our humanity. It is and will continue to be present in society. That need to believe, even if it is only in our own ability to be better than we as human beings, informs our decision making and our political selves. Now, I am not advocating a theocracy or faith-based anything. I am not asking that you embrace my belief system and institutionalize it. What I am saying is that we need to recognize the role of belief systems in shaping our society and find other ways of engaging in discourse than derision or making assumptions about the beliefs of others. I have been guilty of this myself. It just isn't helpful to ignore spirituality nor is it reasonable to expect that people will suddenly shed their beliefs because we get impatient or angry with them for holding to them, no matter how outrageous they seem to our world view.

Education is a two way street. People let go of beliefs when they are taught to let go of fear and to empathize with others as fellow humans.

[DemBones DemBones]

32. JOM, you are quite right about the dangers of Dominionism,

and I know others join me in thanking you for the links you've provided. It would be a service to all DUers if you'd start a separate thread in GD with your post, since it's likely the information you've pulled together would then be read by more posters.

This danger is not overlooked by politically aware Christians, a class that I'd think encompasses all Christians who post at DU, with the obvious exceptions of disruptors who may be neither Christian nor committed to democracy, much less committed to the Democratic Party's ideals. Such disruptors may actually be Dominionists or "Christian Reconstructionists ." I am afraid that many (most?) Christians, excepting those with very right wing beliefs and those of us involved in leftist thought and politics, know nothing of this burgeoning theocratic movement.

As Al Sharpton has said, "The Christian Right is neither."


One cavil (and a lengthy one -- sorry!):

#1 I found the British article "So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?" to differ somewhat from this description,

"Georgie's brain is much worse than you think and he's being used for terrible purposes. Here's a British clinical psychologist's researched analysis of the boy king. He interviewed Georgie's family, friends and such and determined that he was abused as a child and developed an 'authoritarian personality,' the root of fascism! Read it and weep for him and us."

When I read the article some time back, I saw no evidence or claim that the psychologist had interviewed George Bush's family and friends, and it seemed obvious to me that he had, instead, read many of the same sources that I have and used information from those sources.

That doesn't discredit the article at all, but it does discredit part of the description. That's a problem with some leftist sites -- providing an overblown description of an article that's linked to. It's a bad practice and one we should urge sites to avoid. I suspect it occurs because sites are run by a small staff, sometimes a single person, who can make errors that aren't caught by a proofreader/ fact-checker. To help these sites, we can offer a friendly correction to errors we notice.


DB DB

[Mari333]

2. To me, religion is spirituality WITH politics

ergo, discussing religion IS discussing politics to me.

[seabeyond]

3. i always thought that a silly rule

dont talk politis or religion,............hm, dont talk. what does that leave, ignorance, limitation, lack of understanding. no thank you

[Skidmore]

5. Thank you for this post.

I tried to ask a question earlier to expand my fairly limited knowledge of a particular religious group which appears to have a sizable political agenda and was promptly shut down. I've come away with the impression that any inquiry beyond deriding the fundamentalist agenda is generall frowned on and unwelcomed here.

I do agree that many people filter their political views through the lens of their spiritual beliefs or theology. Learning about those viewpoints and agendas seems to me to be desirable and important to resolving some of these issues facing our nation now. Like it or not, we live in a world inhabited by people who ascribe to a large range of belief systems and who exercise various amounts of political influence.

[Mari333]

6. Back in the 70's we used to say

"The personal IS political".
I still adhere to that concept. The study of one's personal life and the roles one plays out in society are political, and politics start in the bedroom and kitchens of our lives.

[DemBones DemBones]

11. What did you ask? Is it something that might be

a good topic for a thread? One DUer started a thread in the Lounge the other day asking why the film is called "The Passion of Jesus THE Christ" instead of referring to Jesus Christ. His question was answered both seriously and flippantly, with several of us tangentially explaining what the H in "Jesus H. Christ" stands for (many different jokes.) Most who participated in the thread had good intentions. There are people here who are prone to vitriolic remarks about religion in general and Christianity in particular, but I think most DUers are able to distinguish between Christians whose theology seems to include a lot of hate and those who try to follow Christ's teachings.

[Skidmore]

13. Check your inbox for a PM explaining.

Thanks for asking.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Will do. n/t

[ret5hd]

7. I was just going to post with the same title...

And ask, at least tangentially, the same question.

My point of view being:

I think there is a vast difference between the following scenarios:

1) A religious person discusses and refines his beliefs on a subject while at home, with his clergy, etc, then goes to "city hall" and states "we can't do that (whatever that may be) because it is wrong".

2)A religious person discusses and refines his beliefs on a subject while at home, with his clergy, etc, then goes to "city hall" and states "we can't do that (whatever that may be) because it is unchristian"

A person can, will, does, and should vote with an eye towards their religious beliefs. And private debate should be wide open. But the "public debate" should be devoid of religious reference. I wonder how many christians would welcome serious consideration of laws that ban the eating of beef because of the religious beliefs of hindus? But if you change the context to banning the eating of beef because of a sudden increase in food poisoning, CJD, etc, then at least you have the basis for a public debate.

I may not have stqated my position very eloquently or clearly, but the gist of it is: we should not have laws or policy based on religious beliefs. We can vote on these laws or policies based on our religious beliefs, but the laws or policies should be able to "stand on their own" in the public debate.

[Malva Zebrina]

28. I agree with you, generally

but the question arises. If everyone voted according to their religion, and many priests, ministers and pastors actually advise their congregation to do so, and if eighty percent of the population is Christian--let us say Protestant, then the majority will rule. If the issue their candidate presents , and upon whom they vote because that candidate follows their religious beliefs, if that issue is, say abortion or the doing away with the current abortion laws, and that candidate wins because of their votes, then, what happens is the tyranny of the majority over the rights of the minority. Further there are so many things contained in the bible that are contradictory that I wonder how ministers can preach to the congregation to vote according to the religion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. religion and politics are only partially related

in that they both sometimes concern themselves with ethics. But a huge amount of religion - whether Jesus was the Son of God, whether souls are reincarnated, etc. - has absolutely nothing to do with politics. For instance, the only relevance of Gibson's film to modern day politics is whether he is pushing an anti-Semitic message or not. It has no bearing on our ethics (unlike, say, a film that includes the Sermon on the Mount).

It's very difficult to even know what religious beliefs most British politicians have. It's America's choice to mingle religion and politics.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. "Religion" is such an emotion-laden term that it might be

better to say our worldview is intertwined with our politics. I feel sure that Az is not implying that atheists and agnostics have no worldview to influence their politics and vice versa.

I'll agree that some religious beliefs seem to have no obvious or direct relationship to politics. Your example of reincarnation of souls would seem to be such a case, yet I believe it's the basis for vegetarianism in Buddhist and Hindu societies, and of course the reason for the protected lives of the sacred cows of India. If Christians believed in reincarnation, would there be any need for PETA or the ASPCA in the US?

As for the Gibson film, I should think it would raise many ethical issues concerning capital punishment, torture, justice, good and bad government, influence of special interests on government, mob rule vs. majority rule, perhaps more effectively than if he had included the Sermon on the Mount. Whether it's a good film is another question entirely, but it seems that people cannot view it with total objectivity. What I'm piecing together suggests that it is artistically good, even brilliant at times, despite its brutal violence, but people are predisposed to like or dislike it for a variety of reasons.

I was intrigued by your comment about religion in the UK vs. the US. If you are English, and the name muriel volestrangler sounds wonderfully English, and you have lived in both countries, perhaps you would share more on this topic?

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Worldview, yes

but I'd contend that there can be a large difference in worldview between people of the same denomination, and sometimes little between people of completely different religions.

Your point about the ASPCA is good; but I think that often the same results come from differing religious reasons (for instance, I thought the cow was sacred in Hinduism because of its usefulness, and association with certain gods, rather than a belief that human souls can be reincarnated as cows).

Yes, I suppose there are political points in the film, though they don't seem to be getting much play at the moment.

I'm English, and I lived in the US for 2 years, so I've seen a little of US politics, but also see it in the international news, and through websites like this (the DU name is stolen from John Cleese, by the way).
It's unusual for British politicians to explicitly mention religion much, for instance, about the Tory leader:
"Crucially, moreover, Howard's Jewish profile has always been low. True, in his leadership bid he drew attention to the fact that he was the child of immigrants. True, he says Jewish values are still 'an important guide and influence on my life', and he attends a (Liberal) synagogue on the high holydays. But he has never made much of his Jewishness. His wife, the former model Sandra Paul, is a member of the Church of England; and his son Nick not only became a Christian, but provoked controversy as a student when he started trying to convert Jews to Christianity as well."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1103/phillips_2003_11_10.php3
I'd never heard about his son (and I think I'm fairly well informed), and I had to search for this to find out if he was a practising Jew or not - but the story of how his father came to Britain (fleeing Hitler) was much better known.
Blair is considered unusual in talking at all about his religion (and even then, his Press Secretary once stopped all religious questions with "we don't do religion"). I know some of the current cabinet are agnostic or atheistic enough to have affirmed allegiance to the Queen, rather than swearing it, but I'd challenge anyone to tell which.
In UK politics, when a subject that does have a significant ethical component comes up, it's very often declared a 'free vote' - there's no party line on it. This would include capital punishment, abortion, and, these days, homosexual matters (though the Tories used to have party policies on this - they've dropped that, since it was losing them some of their more talented politicians). Apart from in Northern Ireland, I'd be surprised to see a candidate mention these explicitly when trying to get elected (though I think many Tories are still pro death penalty, personally).
Contrast this with the US, where candidates seem to be expected to state their views on abortion, and now gay marriage, and very frequently mention God and their religion. The large number of people who say they wouldn't vote for an atheist for president look very strange from a UK perspective.

[PsychoDad]

9. Good post Az

Very well put.

The discussions can be uncomfortable, but they need not be. Civility and respect along with a dose of tolerance would go a long way toward a remedy.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. My spiritual beliefs and politics are intertwined and influence

each other. How could they not?

http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[supernova]

12. My spirituality influences my worldview

certainly. And I think the reverse is also true. When I learn something new about the world, it gets incorporated into my spirituality. So for me, the information flows both ways.

HOWEVER, I would never demand that we set government policy "because my religion says so." And I would be appalled if my denom ever went so far as to give out voter guides or otherwise try to vete candidates. I would be the first one running out the door.

I am for total separation of church and state.

As far as DU goes, I think it's totally appropriate to talk about the use of religion as a political tool, and how we can refute that. I've always said that. But that kind of conversation seems to be quite difficult here. :evilfrown:

[SOteric]

14. What's true for a dinner party is not necessarily true for a message board

While I understand the hopes of being mannerly at a social gathering discussing controversial socio-political topics is precisely why one would gather at a message board.

Yes there are often bruised feelings. There are those who wish to make every supporter of a position held accountable for the statements of others, there are people with suspect reading and comprehension skills and there are people who come to these boards looking for an opportunity to vent at any person who fits a loose criteria, and those who come here with the intent of prosletysing (whether that be Atheists or Theists) to their point of view.

There are also people who come here with open minds, keen intellects and genuine desire simply to be more sensitive to their fellow beings and find these fora an opportunity for understanding. Those are the posters with whom I enjoy discussion.

Genuine discussion of religion and it's role in social and political issues is a rarity, and I'd be pleased to see and participate in more.

[Festivito]

17. Still must avoid some topics while people are digesting.

Politics, Religion and sex, and in Japan: Japanese baseball, I kid you not. It's a rule there.

Firmly held beliefs build into systems of beliefs held with pride. Like a beautiful house of cards, some cards can be jostled, nudged, even removed, others cannot. Bridging between our own house of cards and another person's is best accomplished with understanding where their house is strong, and where it is weak. It helps that we have a true view of our own house of cards from where we bridge.

Instead of being creative, which is hard work, we often resort to making a bridge OUR WAY, and upon failure BLAME THEM for their weak beliefs. Or, we do it their way and then BLAME THEM for their lack of tact. And, indeed the infighting results directly from a lack of practice and lack of success in building bridges.

Systems of beliefs are not just in religions. In science sytems can be built on wave versus particle views on light and arguments can turn ugly. It can matter. Huge research money, huge fame, huge future respect and power can hang such on a discussion's clarity.

In politics there is a lot at stake. Power, fame, fortune have never been more huge than here in the US. Being able to hold it together depends on our abilities to build bridges more accurately, know each other more accurately, and know ourselves more accurately.

I usually notice that the person who gets mad and attacks another's beliefs is usually failing. The Chinese say the person who yells has already lost.

They are the ones having trouble digesting.

[Jose Diablo]

21. It reminds me of a story

I had the duty and privilege to be a member of a jury hearing a traffic accident dispute. As I sat there listening I wondered how a single event could trigger so many different views of what happened. Somebody had to be lying.

During closing arguments one of the attorneys explained the the different views of truth this way.

Imagine a dog that is half white and half black. You have 2 people on opposite sides give testimony of what they see. One says they see a white dog, the other says they see a black dog. Is one lying? No, each telling the truth as they see it. The perspective in describing an object is just as important as the object description.

When describing religious objects the point of view of the person is just as important as object itself. It is possible that both sides of a dispute can be absolutely correct based on their life experiences.

I try to be understanding, but I can be as dogmatic as the next person. It is what we are when we discuss things that may disrupt the security of the 'truth' as we see it.

[Bandit]

22. I think Jesus was asked about the churches role in politics

He said something like Give unto Rome what is Rome's and give unto the lord what is his. In other words Jesus thought they should be kept quite seperate. I also think they should be kept quite seperate. I understand that law makers determine how the rules of society are determined and that could have an effect upon religion but the two should never be mixed.

[Az]

23. Render unto Caesar

This was his comment in regard to obeying local state laws. The focus being material issues are of this world and best left to local laws. Matters of the spirit though are reserved for faith.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Actually,

the case has been made in the Bible that the two belong together.

Now I am not at all for having a theocracy, but I do love using these verses when freepers complain about being forced to pay taxes so that needy people are cared for, because they think that the Bible doesn't say they have to do that.

"Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to give to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21)

"Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who be are ordained by God. Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same, for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn't bear the sword in vain; for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil.

Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are ministers of God's service, attending continually on this very thing. Give therefore to everyone what you owe: taxes to whom taxes are due; customs to whom customs; respect to whom respect; honor to whom honor."

(Romans 13:1-7)

http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[Jose Diablo]

26. Very progressive view.

Progressives been around a long time haven't they.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. Indeed, especially if you count God as one. *l*

[Malva Zebrina]

29. I think it is for that reason stated in that quote

that Jehovah Witnesses do not vote.

[lapislzi]

24. Just another of the services we offer...

We have thick skins, or we wouldn't be here grappling with the big questions.

[Ysabel]

30. good idea to...

to have a well balanced ego before discussing this stuff...

(ego not in control)...

[DemBones DemBones]

31. Az, your post is a sensible and

sensitive cry in the wilderness. The wilderness is a tangle of many different worldviews and there are beasts within the wilderness who would like to decrease their ignorance about the worldviews of others, to compare one worldview to another, attempting to understand as many worldviews as possible and how these worldviews interact with the rest of life, including our politics.

These attempts almost inevitably bring forth protests from the other beasts in this wilderness of tangled worldviews, beasts who have perhaps been wounded in unfortunate struggles between different worldviews. We all know and fear those ugly struggles that can and do occur and not one beast wants to have such a struggle. All of us bear scars from past ugly struggles, scars that are visible in our hides, especially painful in the thinnest parts of our hides, those patches over the very centers of our beings.

Is it any wonder that some beasts say we should never risk injury to our delicate centers? Has any beast among us not felt that way at some time or another? Have most not felt that way many times? "Protect, protect, reveal nothing and you will be safe" is a common thought. Is it any wonder that when discussion-minded beasts such as you and I, and the others who have made fine contributions to this thread, attempt dialogue on issues that reveal who we are beneath our masks, other beasts recoil from the thought of such potentially dangerous talk ?

But as you said, when dialogue about religion and politics is stymied or stifled, "The ability to dialog eventually atrophies and the sides become even further removed." So dialogue must continue, among those beasts who wish to undertake it. No beast will be forced to participate, of course, but dialogue must go on. If we can dialogue about politics, we can dialogue about our worldviews, no matter how distant they may seem from one another. After all, we are here because of the common threads in our political views and our political views are inevitably entangled with our worldviews, with our philosophies, religions, spiritualities, our beliefs and unbeliefs .

Where do we go next in our dialogue? Should we gather in the Meeting Room, a forum set up to allow relatively slow-moving long-term discussions such as our topics may require? Would you, Az, like to start a thread there or should we first discuss here the advisability of the move?